conference in which the mayors of four Mexican border cities and one U.S. mayor, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, gathered to discuss cross-border issues.

Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes blamed U.S. deportation policy for contributing to his citys violence, saying that of the 80,000 people deported to Juarez in the past three years, 28,000 had U.S. criminal records  including 7,000 convicted rapists and 2,000 convicted murderers.

Those criminal deportees, he said, have contributed to the violence in Juarez, which has reported more than 2,200 murders this year. Reyes and the other Mexican mayors said that when the U.S. deports criminals back to Mexico, it should fly them to their hometowns, not just bus them to the border.

But critics in America say the Mexican lawmakers are simply trying to pass the buck to the U.S. and its taxpayers. They say the Mexicans should take responsibility for their criminals, who are putting both Mexican and American lives in danger.

Its especially snort-worthy considering that open-borders extremists have recently been spouting ridiculous drivel about how calling illegal immigrants illegal is leading to loads of anti-immigrant violence. Reality, of course, is that violent crimes committed by the poor, sweet, victimized illegal immigrants far outweighs any anti-Latino violence imagined by the amnesty advocates.

And this is, of course, Mexican officials trying to put the blame on the United States instead of taking responsibility for their own citizens. Yes, a large number of these Mexican illegal immigrants are, in fact, criminals, and oftentimes violent criminals at that. Thats why we dont want them here. Thats why so many Americans want to get tough on immigration  starting with securing the border. Youd think Mexican officials would understand this, considering Mexicos own strict immigration laws. Could this have anything to do with the Reconquista mindset encouraged by Mexicos own president?

Speaking of violent Mexicans, Green Room blogger Director Blue reports on another tragic American death at the hands of Mexicans. David and Tiffany Hartley were jet skiing on Falcon Lake, and rode over to the Mexican side to take pictures of a Spanish mission. They were chased by Mexican boats, where Tiffanys husband David was shot in the head and fell into the water. When she went back to retrieve his body, the thugs held a gun to her head.

Tiffany Hartley told deputies she and her husband David were jet skiing near the town of Old Guerrrero. Hartley told investigators her husband was shot in the head and killed. She says she was forced to leave his body behind as the gunmen fired more bullets at her.

Hartley did tell authorities after the shooting she got help from a man on shore. The Good Samaritan told deputies he saw the Mexican boats chasing her into US waters. CHANNEL 5 NEWS spoke to the man who stepped up to help Tiffany in those first terrifying moments after her husbands murder.

The Good Samaritan wants to remain anonymous because he fears for his life. He was on the west side of the lake. He goes there once a week, but for some reason he went twice this week.

For him it was just another day on Falcon Lake. The sky was clear, and there were people out having fun. Then, out of the blue he saw a jetski being chased by a boat. Everything would change for the Good Samaritan when he heard Tiffany Hartley rushing toward him. As she sobbed she told him her husband had been shot.

She could see the gunshots wounds to his head. His brains were falling and he was not breathing, he said. The man tried to console her. She told him she and her husband David had gone to old Guerrro on the Mexico side of the lake to take pictures of a Spanish mission.

Three boats approached them, waving guns talking in Spanish, he said. They got scared, spooked then they heard the gunshots going on. She could see they were hitting the water and the water was coming up at them. [A]ll of a sudden she sees her husband flying off.

Tiffany told him she turned around to go take care of her husband, but two pirates went after her jetski. One pirate held a gun to her head. Once he left she tried to pull her husband body onto her jetski but she didnt have the strength.

She told the Good Samaritan she made an agonizing decision. She left her husband behind because she could see a pirate charging towards her. Her story is forever imprinted in his head.

Authorities believe this was the work of pirates working for a drug cartel, who have often been robbing boaters at gunpoint. This is the fifth violent incident at Falcon Lake in five months, with the worst obviously being David Hartleys murder.

Why would we want to keep these kind of violent criminals in United States territory? The stance of the Mexican mayors would be understandable if we were abandoning violent American criminals in Mexico. But we arent. These are Mexican citizens, meaning they were Mexicos problem. Americans are already shouldering the burden of harboring Mexicos worst criminals. These violent criminals are Mexicos responsibility.

Of course, knowing our current leadership, these Mexican loons will probably get time to complain in front of Congress, where Obama will promptly apologize for the United States selfishness in expecting Mexico to take responsibility for its own citizens.

" That one made me slap the side of my head; good grief people we have got to seal that border.. P.C."

Not just the ordinary violent thugs, gangs and cartels of Mexican and Latin American origin but I can imagine some middle east types with 911 hijacker style motives coming across the southern border or those home grown British and northern European terror types like the London bombers, Theo van Gogh's killers or Danish cartoon protesters coming across our northern border or vice versa.

We have about the right number of thugs of our own here already IMO. The new people coming in need to be screened and held to a little higher standard like being crime free and trained in field where we have a shortage of workers. Right now it seems like it is the border gang and drug cartels doing that screening for us and using the wrong criteria.

PHOENIX — Here in Arizona, illegal immigrants get the boot. But refugees get the welcome mat.

Victor Acevedo migrated illegally to Arizona and is now awaiting deportation back to Mexico. Through a new law that gained widespread attention this year, the state is known for being particularly tough on illegal immigrants.

Even as officials rage at what they have called the “invasion” of illegal immigrants, mostly Mexicans, Arizona has welcomed thousands of legal immigrants from such grief-torn lands as Somalia, Myanmar and Iraq, and is known for treating them unusually well.

Indeed, the scorched expanse of the Phoenix valley can seem like a giant resettlement lab. Bosnians trim the watered lawns of the Arizona Biltmore, and Karenni speakers have their own prenatal class at St. Joseph’s hospital. A Sudanese goat farmer is thriving in a desert slaughterhouse built with a micro-enterprise loan. (He is glad to demonstrate his skill in turning goats to goat meat.)

Hai Doo, a laundry worker from Myanmar, got grants to buy his first home. Yasoda Bhattarai, a new mother from Bhutan, credits 10 weeks of free hospital care for saving her daughter, who was born with tuberculosis. “Whenever people ask me about Phoenix, I tell them it is the best place,” she said.

Only three states accepted more refugees on a per capita basis over the past six years. Arizona took nearly twice as many refugees per capita as its liberal neighbor, California, and more than twice as many per capita as New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

“In the degree of welcome and receptivity we see, I would certainly put Arizona at the top,” said Robert Carey, a vice president at the International Rescue Committee, which resettles refugees in a dozen states.

The work contrasts with the state’s renown as the scourge of illegal immigrants, whom critics blame for driving up crime, stealing jobs and burdening hospitals and schools.

“We’re not anti-immigrant — never have been,” said State Senator Russell Pearce, a Republican who is a leading critic of illegal immigration. “But we expect people to follow the law.”

Mr. Pearce sponsored a new law that would give the police greater power to question people about their immigration status. The Obama administration has sued, arguing the law usurps federal power and encourages racial profiling.

Numerically, the groups do not compare; Arizona took in about 4,700 refugees last year, but is thought to have about 375,000 illegal immigrants. Refugees are not economic migrants but survivors of war and persecution whom the United States admits for humanitarian and foreign policy reasons. In fleeing violence, many refugees themselves illegally crossed borders overseas.

Refugee groups in Arizona sometimes feel caught in the political crossfire, wanting to emphasize that their clients are legal immigrants without taking sides in the larger war.

“We don’t want to be in the position of saying one group is good and another is bad,” said Robin Dunn Marcos, who runs the rescue group’s Phoenix office.

Arizona first drew refugees because the cost of living is low, and until the recession the state had lots of entry-level jobs open to non-English speakers, like housekeeping and lawn care. Early success, with Bosnians and Kosovars in the late 1990s and later with war orphans from Sudan, helped build local support.

Efforts intensified after the hiring in 2002 of a new state coordinator, Charles Shipman, who is married to a former Cambodian refugee and known for his advocacy. In recent years, Arizona has taken more than three times as many refugees as it did when he arrived.

Mr. Shipman quickly spotted a shortage of interpreters for a population ever more ethnically diverse. He commissioned a study that found language barriers “quite troubling.” The rescue group then used it to win a private grant to start an interpreting service. It now operates in 14 languages, including Kirundi (Burundi), Tigrinya (Ethiopia) and Hakka (China).

As the recession took hold, Mr. Shipman led a charge to prevent homelessness among newly arrived refugees. In part at his prompting, the federal government let Arizona shift some federal money into rent relief and urged other states to follow.

That benefited Harith Khalid Aziz, an Iraqi refugee with a master’s degree, who was earning little as a part-time clerk in a grocery. With a wife and a young son, he said it was “a horrible feeling” to fear eviction.

A few months’ aid sustained him until he found a better job. In Arizona, even “if you are not from the same race, they welcome you,” he said. “The U.S. is built on this.”

=========

Page 2 of 2)

Last year, the federal government admitted about 75,000 refugees, out of 10.5 million worldwide, and it covers most resettlement costs. State officials administer the money and help decide how many refugees they can take; private agencies do the casework, helping find housing and jobs.

The Biltmore not only hired refugees but donated used furniture to them. The private Tesseract School (tuition: $19,000 a year), established a scholarship just for refugees. When the rescue group encouraged clients to farm, Hickman’s Eggs donated 60 tons of chicken manure. Hai Doo, the laundry worker from the former Burma, thought the home ownership program was too good to be true. Matching grants converted his $5,000 in savings into a $24,000 down payment on a house. Most of the money came from the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, which is required to spend some of its profits on housing aid. “I never thought I would get help like this,” he said.

The flip side of the Arizona story includes the Maricopa County sheriff, Joe Arpaio, who courts a national following by advertising his toughness toward illegal immigrants. (“The rumor is I could run for president,” he said in a recent interview.)

Mr. Arpaio conducts frequent raids on immigrant neighborhoods, stopping people for minor infractions and reviewing their immigration status. He says these raids have netted hundreds of illegal immigrants. Critics say they spread fear and harass legal residents. Victor Acevedo, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, said he was stopped in January after failing to use his turn signal and was found with a small amount of marijuana. He is now awaiting deportation in one of Mr. Arpaio’s famed prison tents, dressed in the standard outfit: black stripes and pink underwear.

In a tent-side interview in 107-degree heat, Mr. Acevedo, 29, said he came nine years ago for a “better livelihood,” found a landscaping job, married an American and had two American-born sons. He was deported in 2008 but returned a year later to be with his family.

“We’re here illegally, but we’re still human beings,” he said.

Refugees seem slow to sympathize. The two groups often compete for jobs or housing, and some refugees say Latino gangs have preyed on them.

The United States “stands for law and order,” said Wissam Salman, 35, a hotel housekeeper from Iraq. “If they don’t look for these people it will be a disaster.”

Ibrahim Swara-Dahab, the Sudanese goat farmer, agrees.

“I have some problems with the Mexican people; they stole my goats,” he said. “If they don’t have documents, they should go back to their country.”

Mr. Swara-Dahab acknowledged that he, too, crossed a border illegally when he fled to Kenya but called that a matter of life and death. “Here, the situation is different,” he said. “You need documents.”

Remember when Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was ridiculed for saying headless bodies were being found in the desert? Well, now they're turning up in the Phoenix area. It's curious how the Democrats aren't running against her this election cycle. They obviously realize what a losing issue they support. Speaking of losers, has anyone seen Eric Holder lately?

The gruesome case of a man who was stabbed and beheaded in a suburban Phoenix apartment has police investigating whether the killing is potentially the most extreme example of Mexican drug cartel violence spilling over the border.

Martin Alejandro Cota-Monroy's body was found Oct. 10 in a Chandler apartment -- his severed head a couple feet away. One man suspected in the killing has been arrested, and a manhunt is under way for three others.

Detectives are focused on whether the men belong to a Mexican drug cartel, and they suspect that Cota-Monroy's killing was punishment for stealing drugs. The brutal nature of the killing could be designed to send a message to others within the cartel.

"If it does turn out to be a drug cartel out of Mexico, typically that's a message being sent," said Chandler police Detective David Ramer. "This person was chosen to be executed. It sends a message to other people: If you cross us, this is what happens."

Decapitations are a regular part of the drug war in Mexico as cartels fight over territory. Headless bodies have been hanged from bridges by their feet, severed heads have been sent to victims' family members and government officials, and bags of up to 12 heads have been dropped off in high-profile locations.

More than 28,000 people have been killed in Mexico in drug-related violence since December 2006, when President Felipe Calderon deployed soldiers to battle the cartels in their strongholds.

If the suspects in the Arizona case belong to a cartel, the crime could be the only known beheading in the U.S. carried out by a drug cartel, said Tony Payan, a political science professor at the University of Texas at El Paso who has done extensive research about border violence.

The killing could also affect the immigration debate in Arizona. Supporters of the state's controversial immigration law frequently cite this type of violence as reason to crack down on illegal immigrants. The decapitation victim and the suspects were all illegal immigrants.

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer drew criticism this year for claiming that headless bodies were being found in the Arizona desert as she sought to bolster her argument for immigration reform. She later backtracked on those claims, but said such violence in the broader border region is cause enough for alarm.

The killing has unnerved residents in the neighborhood and apartment complex where Cota-Monroy was killed.

Yesterday, I published a target phone list of GOP Senators for the upcoming stand-alone vote on the DREAM Act/Illegal Alien Student Bailout.

I’ve polled Republican Senate offices and you should know that many open-borders squishes remain on the fence about this Obama/Reid down payment on blanket illegal alien amnesty. That’s right. The following GOP Senators haven’t made up their mind on whether they should oppose a bill that amounts to a 2.1 million future Democrat voter recruitment drive. Know your fence-sitters:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN 202-224-2235; 480-897-6289: Staff says he “hasn’t made a public statement” and “hasn’t made up his mind.” He talked a tough border security game to get re-elected, while promising illegal alien activists he would “resolve their issues.” (Refresh your memories here.)

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK 202-224-6521; 785-233-2503 Staff says he “hasn’t had a chance to look at it” and remains non-committal.

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON 202-224-5922; 214-361-3500: Staff says she “hasn’t released a statement,” but will probably do so later today.

SEN. GEORGE LEMIEUX 202-224-3041; 904-398-8586: Recorded message informs callers that he’s “in a meeting.” He has yet to publicly state his position as open-borders extremists step up pressure.

***

FYI: The following GOP Senators who had been of concern say they are opposed to the stand-along DREAM Act:

SEN. SCOTT BROWN: Staff says he “does not support ANY taxpayer illegal alien amnesty bills,” including the DREAM Act.

SEN. MIKE JOHANNS: Opposed the DREAM Act. Period.

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: Opposed.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: A former DREAM Act champion, he is now opposed.

***

SEN. JUDD GREGG: Staff says he is a likely no vote.

***

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR, an original co-sponsor of the DREAM Act amnesty, remains a staunch supporter.

***

Your voice and your calls count. Make yourselves heard.

***

Yesterday, I mentioned GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions’ alert on the DREAM Act dangers. Here is the full memo. Spread the word and make sure your Senators know where you stand.

Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act

1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans

Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “kids.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act—hardly the “kids” the Act’s advocates keep talking about.

The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.

2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application

Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens’ removal from the United States. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.

3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act

Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.

4. Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply

Section 4(d) of the DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the DREAM Act will make approximately 2.1 million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than the estimated 2.1 million due to fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal alien population. Clearly, the message sent by the DREAM Act will be that if any young person can enter the country illegally, within 5 years, they will be placed on a path to citizenship.

5. Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits

The DREAM Act will allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition, even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of the DREAM Act repeals Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.

6. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty

DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a pathway to citizenship – they simply have to get a GED and be admitted to “an institution of higher education,” defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Under the Higher Education Act, an “institution of higher education” includes institutions that provide 2-year programs (community colleges) and any “school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment” (a vocational school). Within 8 years of the initial grant of status, the alien must prove only that they finished 2 years of a bachelor’s degree program, not that they completed any program or earned any degree.

If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the education requirement can be waived altogether.

7. The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service

DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who don’t go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens to join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services.” This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the military service requirement can be waived altogether. Such claims will likely engender much litigation and place a huge burden on DHS.

Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.

8. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration

Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate their “immediate relatives” to the U.S. without regard to numerical caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses and children to the U.S. as long as they retain their status. This means illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the right to immigrate their family members—including the parents who sent for or brought them to the U.S. illegally in the first place—in unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens (6 to 8 years after enactment) and are 21 years of age.

Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the U.S., further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal entry into the United States (for those who don’t want to wait for the petition process overseas). When an adult brother or sister receives a green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling receive green cards as well.

9. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid

Section 10 of the DREAM Act allows illegal aliens amnestied under the bill’s provisions to qualify for federal student assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the form of federal student loans (Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans), federal work-study programs, and other federal education services such as tutoring and counseling.

10. DHS Is Prohibited From Using the Information Provided By Illegal Aliens Whose DREAM Act Amnesty Applications Are Denied To Initiate Their Removal Proceedings or Investigate or Prosecute Fraud in the Application Process

When an illegal alien’s DREAM Act amnesty application is denied, the bill states that the alien will revert to their “previous immigration status,” which is likely illegal or deportable. The bill, however, prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process. Thus, it will be extremely hard for DHS to remove aliens who they now know are illegally present in the U.S., because illegal aliens will be able to claim that the legal action is a product of the amnesty application, and DHS will have the nearly impossible task of proving a negative.****

Woof, An update on the border agent murder; the government doesn't seem to be interested in giving out the details on what they are calling a criminal gang that killed the agent. Trust me if they were U.S. citizens or immigrants here legally they would be falling over themselves to get that out. They are actively protecting their intentional efforts to keep our border unsecured and our immigration laws unenforced and they don't want any blowback from the consequences of that.www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/12/18/20101218border-roberts1218.html

"Border Patrol Agent Terry and the BORTAC team were under standing orders to always use ("non-lethal") bean-bag rounds first before using live ammunition. When the smugglers heard the first rounds, they returned fire with real bullets, and Agent Terry was killed in that exchange. Real bullets outperform bean bags every time."

Moving discussion from education thread to here I found this on illegals in military. It is from 2005. I am not clear how prevalent it is but it certainly occurs and obviously the military is not going to come clean publically with this so no one knows for sure, I doubt anyone is seriously looking into this with any real diigence.

Reforms made since that article stopped my wife from enlisting. When she first tried to enlist, she was here legally but had not yet been issued her permanent resident alien card "green card". After getting her green card, she started processing when her Social Security number came up as belonging to a non-resident alien, because she had been a non-resident when she had it issued because she was lawfully employed (work permit). When she was issued her green card, the SSA never adjusted the status on her SSN. By the time she got that sorted out, other opportunities came up so she did not end up enlisting.

Dealing with the INS/USCIS and other federal entities when you are a "legal" is a nightmare.

I think most on this forum, myself included think illegal immigration needs to be stopped.But it's not an easy problem to solve.

The Obama administration on Friday ended a high-tech border fence project that cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion but did little to improve security. Congress ordered the high-tech fence along the border with Mexico in 2006 amid a clamor over the porous border, but it yielded only 53 miles of protection.

Woof ccp, I can follow your logic there but the reality is that the controlling Republican leadership hasn't been anymore willing to seal that border or deport illegals or prosecute employers or go after sanctuary cities or bring pressure on the Mexican government anymore than the Dem's. They pay lip service to NATIONAL SECURITY, HUMAN SMUGGLING, DRUG TRAFFICKING, ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS, AND THE COST TO THE AMERICAN WORKER AND TAXPAYER AND THE VALUE OF CITIZENSHIP. Not to mention they allow all of this while ignoring the will of the majority of Americans, that just want them to do their F'in job!

"Still, here in America my Japanese, Korean, or Chinese friends, although they are have become naturalized citizens, often still refer to themselvesas Korean, etc. or I might call them "Korean". I don't think an offense is taken either way. I think the first generation always has one leg in the country of their birth and one in America, their adopted country. It's understandable."

As a doctor many of my colleagues are from somewhere else. I think more than half of doctors in NJ are Indian, Pakistan, Arab, Asian.Yes we generally get along yet I am never quite sure how they actually think about America or for me, Jews.

Some if not many or most would be the first to tell me America is still the best place in the world. But what about the ones who harbor a dislike or even hatred of Americans or Jews? Of course they aren't going to tell me. Are some of them sending money to Jihadists? Or some of them sympathetic with the WTC bombers?Are some of the Chinese sending intellectual property back to China? There is NO doubt some are. But which ones.

I wouldn't know. I couldn't know. I know only one thing. As an elderly retired dentist once told my mother decades ago while we were walking down to the corner stores, "one never knows what is going on in the back of a man's mind!"

I never forgot him saying that.

One Pakistani physician whose son was almost killed when that lady was assinated in Pakistan told me these Jhadists and trouble makers are crazy. They used to be mostly in the western part of the country but now they are everywhere. And he said the problem is one can not know who is who or who is loyal to what. Even they can't tell what the other ones are doing or thinking.

A heated debate is mounting over the term ``blood purity'' as the United Nations advised the Korean government to refrain from using the term. ____________________________________________________________________________________

A particularly nasty strain of racist propaganda has enabled North Korea's dictatorship to maintain power, according to this fascinating cultural survey. An American-born, South Korea-based instructor of North Korean literature, Myers (A Reader's Manifesto) combines his cultural and linguistic fluency with sharp analysis to throw light on one of the world's most closed-off cultures. Examining North Korean books, news broadcasts, and films, Myers finds that the country's supremacist propaganda can be traced to imperial Japan, which sought to convince Koreans that they were part of the "world's purest race." Myers acidly discredits Western interpretations of North Korea as "hard-line communist" or "Confucian," noting the prevalence of maternal rather than paternal imagery and the societal scorn for the former Soviet bloc. Esoteric cultural markers-e.g., the heavy use of flashbacks in film and literature-are mined for compelling clues to the North Korean sensibility. Myers' greatest feat is his explanation of how the regime has maintained power despite its failures in almost every area of governance-how it has convinced average North Korean citizens that shipments of U.S. food aid, for example, are actually reparations for past "Yankee" crimes. A sharp and smart introduction to one of the world's most secretive societies.

Shanghai, China (CNN) -- It all started with the lure of the glitz, the glamour and the dream of being China's next pop star. But, as with many reality shows, Lou Jing's instant fame came with unanticipated consequences.

Lou Jing was born 20 years ago in Shanghai to a Chinese mother and an African-American father. According to her mother, who asked not to be identified in this report, she met Lou's father while she was still in college. He left China before their daughter was born.

Growing up with a single mom in central Shanghai, Lou Jing said she had good friends and lived a normal life. "When I was young, I didn't feel any different," she said.

But as soon as she stepped into the national spotlight on a Chinese reality television show called "Go! Oriental Angel," Lou Jing became a national sensation -- not necessarily because of her talent, but how she looked.

"After the contest started, I often got more attention than the other girls. It made me feel strange," Lou said.

The reality show hosts fondly called her "chocolate girl" and "black pearl." The Chinese media fixated on her skin color. Netizens flooded Web sites with comments saying she "never should have been born" and telling her to "get out of China."

Lou Jing's background became fodder for national gossip, sparking a vitriolic debate about race across a country that, in many respects, can be quite homogenous. There are 56 different recognized ethnic groups in China, but more than 90 percent of the population is Han Chinese. So people who look different stand out.

"We lived in a small circle before," said her mother. "But after Lou was seen nationwide, some Chinese people couldn't accept her."

It has been a shocking ordeal for someone who says she always considered herself just like every other Chinese girl.

"Sometimes people on the street would ask me, 'Why do you speak Chinese so well?' I'd just say, 'Because I'm Chinese!'" Lou said.

But, as any curious child would, Lou Jing certainly thought about why she looked different. In a clip reel aired on the show, her classmates say they tried to protect her from feeling out of place.

"She used to wonder why she had black skin," said one classmate. "We thought about this question together and decided to tell her it's because she likes dark chocolate. So her skin turned darker gradually."

Another classmate weighed in, "We said it's because she used to drink too much soy sauce."

Even Lou Jing's maternal grandmother admitted in a taped interview, "I told Lou Jing she was black because her mom was not very well and had to take Chinese medicine."

CCP said, "As a doctor many of my colleagues are from somewhere else. I think more than half of doctors in NJ are Indian, Pakistan, Arab, Asian.Yes we generally get along yet I am never quite sure how they actually think about America or for me, Jews."

I'm making a broad generalization, but in my experience most educated foreigners who work here have a positive attitude towards America. The "Land of opportunity".

As for their attitude towards Jews, again making a broad generalization, I think there is admiration. Most Jews I know are successful, hard working, value education and academics, make money, love their God, value family, and as a general rule, avoid violent crime. Attributes successful foreigners all admire. And I have told this time after time by successful foreigners; they respect Jews in general. I wouldn't worry CCP what your foreign colleagues here in America think. Frankly, I think we need more educated bright foreigners here in America and less day laborers.

Arriving as Pregnant Tourists, Leaving With American BabiesBy JENNIFER MEDINAPublished: March 28, 2011

SAN GABRIEL, Calif. — The building inspectors and police officers walked into the small row of connected town houses here knowing something was amiss. Neighbors had complained about noise and a lot of pregnant women coming and going. And when they went into a kitchen they saw a row of clear bassinets holding several infants, with a woman acting as a nurse hovering over them.

For months, officials say, the house was home to “maternity tourists,” in this case, women from China who had paid tens of thousands of dollars to deliver their babies in the United States, making the infants automatic American citizens. Officials shut down the home, sending the 10 mothers who had been living there with their babies to nearby motels.

“These were not women living in squalor — it was a well taken care of place and clean, but there were a lot of women and babies,” said Clayton Anderson, a city inspector who shut down the house on March 9. “I have never seen anything like this before. We really couldn’t determine the exact number of people living there.”

For the last year, the debate over birthright citizenship has raged across the country, with some political leaders calling for an end to the 14th Amendment, which gives automatic citizenship to any baby born in the United States. Much of the debate has focused on immigrants entering illegally from poor countries in Latin America. But in this case the women were not only relatively wealthy, but also here legally on tourist visas. Most of them, officials say, have already returned to China with their American babies.

Immigration experts say it is impossible to know precisely how widespread “maternity tourism” is. Businesses in China, Mexico and South Korea advertise packages that arrange for doctors, insurance and postpartum care. And the Marmara, a Turkish-owned hotel on the Upper East Side in New York City, has advertised monthlong “baby stays” that come with a stroller.

For the most part, though, the practice has involved individuals. The discovery of the large-scale facility here in the San Gabriel foothills raises questions about whether it was a rare phenomenon or an indication that maternity tourism is entering a new, more institutionalized phase with more hospital-like facilities operating quietly around the country.

The San Gabriel town houses are nestled in a small street lined with modest houses, small apartment buildings and palm trees. A construction crew was at work late last week, closing up walls that had been knocked down between units, in violation of the housing code.

Signs of a makeshift maternity house were evident everywhere. In one kitchen, stacks of pictures showing a mother holding her days-old baby sat next to several cans of formula. In another, boxes of prenatal vitamins were tucked into rice cookers. Several bedroom doors had numbers on them. Some rooms were rather luxurious — B9, for instance, had a large walk-in closet, a whirlpool and a small personal refrigerator.

The Center for Health Care Statistics estimates that there were 7,462 births to foreign residents in the United States in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available. That is a small fraction of the roughly 4.3 million total births that year.

Immigration experts say they can only guess why well-to-do Chinese women are so eager to get United States passports for their babies, but they suspect it is largely as a kind of insurance policy should they need to move. The children, once they turn 21, would also be able to petition for their parents to get United States citizenship.

Angela Maria Kelley, the vice president for immigration policy and advocacy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning research group, said the existence of businesses helping foreign women give birth in the United States had only just begun to enter the public consciousness.

===========================

Page 2 of 2)

“If this is something that was really widespread and happening all over, you would have expected it to really have revealed itself,” Ms. Kelley said. “I think it deserves a lot more study and a lot more attention. But to say that you want to change the Constitution because of this feels like killing a fly with an Uzi.”

The State Department, which grants tourist visas, is not permitted to deny visa applications simply because a woman is pregnant. “These people aren’t doing anything in violation of our laws,” said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates tougher immigration controls. “But if anything, it is worse than illegal immigrants delivering a baby here. Those kids are socialized as Americans. This phenomenon of coming to the U.S. and then leaving with people who have unlimited access to come back is just ridiculous.”

San Gabriel, about 20 miles east of Los Angeles, has grown rapidly in recent years and is now a hub of businesses catering to Asian immigrants — tea shops fill the strip malls and for-sale signs in Chinese and Vietnamese are planted in front of several homes.

Mr. Anderson said a kind of “semitransient” community had a strong presence in this suburb. It is not uncommon for a single residence to be home to as many as 40 people. But as in other cities, the boarders are usually men, often working to send money to their families back home.

City officials asked basic questions to the women they found in the maternity house: how did they get here and who paid for them to come? The answers: on a tourist visa, and our family paid. The house’s owner, Dwight Chang, was fined $800 for code violations. Mr. Chang did not return several phone calls, and one worker at the building said he was traveling and not available.

“We didn’t do an extensive interview of the women; that wasn’t their job nor should it be,” said Jennifer Davis, the director of community development for the city. The city did alert public health officials, she said, who found nothing wrong with the babies.

Ms. Davis said city officials had also alerted the immigration authorities. Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the agency had investigated a similar situation in another Southern California city last year, but it yielded no evidence of any federal violations. She declined to say whether federal officials were investigating the San Gabriel operation, citing agency policy.

Yolanda Alvarez, who walks her dog past the town houses twice each day, said neighbors had complained among themselves for nearly a year, noticing “many, many young women” going in and out of the house.

Several pictures of a nurse posing with new mothers were scattered on the counters Friday. A framed tile was collecting dust amid the construction. “Home,” it said, “is where your story begins.”

Remarkable how the liberals have their heads on backwards. The liberal media will go after ARizona for trying to enforce the borders when the Feds will not. Yet when San Fran refuses to cooperate with the Feds in *enforcing* illegal immigration not a peep from the MSM. No doubt if illegals were predominantly potential Republicans we would hear the outrage broadcasted coast to coast. And of course here it comes. The phoney One, is now going to Texas for his "reform" immigration tour to garner more votes. Without Fox would any of us ever heard of this. "Immigration reform" = code for secrue more Democrat voters:

Published May 07, 2011| In this July 26, 2010 photo,Senior Deputy Jerry Anttila looks at a set of fingerprints for an unidentified suspect during the booking process at the Arapahoe County Justice Center in Centennial, Colo. (AP)San Francisco, one of the first sanctuary cities in the nation, plans to end its cooperation with federal immigration officials and start releasing illegal immigrants arrested for minor offenses before they can be picked up for deportation.

The city's decision is the latest development in a tug of war between several communities and the federal government over its controversial national program that automatically checks the immigration status of arrestees.

Officials in jurisdictions including Providence, R.I., and Chicago have also challenged the program, which they say undermines trust that it has taken local law enforcement years to build in immigrant communities.

California and Illinois lawmakers are considering measures to let communities retreat from the so-called "Secure Communities" program, which links up the FBI's criminal database and the Department of Homeland Security's records so that every time someone is arrested their immigration status is automatically, electronically checked.

Washington state has deferred to local governments on whether they want to join program overseen by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

But their efforts could be thwarted as federal officials argue that states have no control over what information is shared among federal agencies.

In the absence of a nationwide fix on immigration, the tension between states and the federal government has been simmering in recent years. In the last four years, states have passed a flurry of bills and resolutions on issues ranging from employer verification to access to driver's licenses, most notably Arizona's tough local immigration enforcement law.

Immigrant advocates have lambasted ICE's fingerprint sharing program for sweeping up crime victims and witnesses who are arrested during an investigation in addition to those accused of committing a crime. About 29 percent of the 102,000 immigrants deported under the program since it began in 2008 have no criminal conviction, according to federal government statistics.

Between October 2008 and March 2011, more than 7 million people who have been arrested have had their fingerprints run through the ICE program. Roughly 197,000 were identified as suspected illegal immigrants, and nearly 40 percent of those were in California, according to statistics provided by ICE.

In San Francisco, Sheriff Michael Hennessey told the San Francisco Examiner he is making the change effective June 1 to comply with the city's sanctuary ordinance.

The law, which has caused tension between local and federal authorities, prohibits officials from assisting ICE in cases that do not involve felonies.

The city currently keeps low-level offenders ICE has identified as illegal immigrants through fingerprints until immigration officials collect them. The Examiner reports that 111 inmates were detained for deportation between last June and February.

Immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez told Fox News on Saturday that the city still has to hold suspects for 72 hours if federal immigration officials ask.

"That is the law," he said. "The question is whether they are going to be reporting people that are committing speeding tickets or small violations rather than the felonies or criminal people that should be deported under the criminal alien program."

Hernandez said that approach is the one being used across the country.

But Mike Cutter, a former senior special agent for the now defunct U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), sought to highlight the significance of the program by estimating that about half of the FBI's 10 most wanted get arrested for motor vehicle violations.

"If you have somebody in custody who is an illegal alien, it's important that immigration does get notified," he said, arguing that the debate is minimizing the reason for immigration laws in the first place. He said the law lists categories of illegal immigrants that cross the border because they know they couldn't get through the inspections process, including terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, human rights violators and war criminals.

"So if you have somebody who ran the border, somebody whose presence is illegal and you have them in custody, it's in everyone's best interest, including the people in the immigrant communities who very often fall victim to criminal aliens, to have ICE pick them and let ICE make a determination as to whether or not these folks are a priority to remove," he said.

But Hernandez said law enforcement does not have the resources to arrest everyone stopped for a speeding ticket.

"We have to focus our resources on things that are more serious and people that have actual criminal warrants for serious offenses," he said.

The debate over the ICE program is playing out across the country as federal authorities aim to achieve nationwide coverage in 2013. It currently is in effect in more than 1,200 jurisdictions in 42 states.

Immigration officials say the goal is to ensure illegal immigrants who commit crimes are flagged and deported. Nationwide, about 26 percent of those deported under program have been convicted of major drug offenses or violent crimes.

Some communities have welcomed the program as a cost savings measure and a way to ensure illegal immigrants who commit crimes are not released back into their neighborhoods. In Colorado, for example, lawmakers were considering a measure to withhold funding from localities that refused to participate, but it failed.

DEFINITION: Estimated number of Illegal Immigrants. Latest available data - 2000 Census. Eight other States --Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming --each had fewer than 2,500 estimated unauthorized residents in 1990 and 2000. The US Citizenship ad Immigration Services also highlights that the illegal immigrant population in America grows by approximatley a half a million each year. Taken into account, the current illegal immigrant population is between 9 and 11 million people.

Those numbers are very interesting but too bad they are year 2000, more than a decade old, telling us everything except recent and current trends. I am guessing that the 2010 did not differentiate illegals, counting them same as citizens for representation, and therefore we will never have an update with similar accuracy or undercount.

Note how quickly the numbers drop from the problem areas in 2000. By 2010 I would guess that many of those migrated further in to other states for jobs (or welfare and public services) while many many new ones were entering Calif, TX, AZ, etc.

Woof, Obama has the solution to the illegal immigration problem; just make it legal. Of course he has a very highminded humanitarian reason and justification for just making it all go away, he wants the hispanic vote so he can continue to run the nation into the ground in furtherance of his Liberal agenda. States and their citizens who simply want our laws enforced and a secure border have been mocked by the President by his putting forth the false premise that Republicans want to return all 14 million illegal aliens back to their homelands overnight. It took 30 years for things to get this bad and things are going to quickly continue to get worse under the President's plan. He always forgets to mention that if these 14 million obtain legal status they will in time be able to bring the rest of their families in as well. Mom, dad, little sis and suddenly 14 turns into 30 million+. On top of that there's little likelyhood that any new laws will be enforced or the border secured any better than the old ones, so expect a continual flow of more illegal aliens that will be given legal status as well somewhere down the road. How about this Mr. President, seal the border now so that no new illegals can get in or deported ones come back, start fully enforcing our laws, prosecuting employers and start today and deal with each individual that's here illegally, deporting them one at a time and continue to do this from now on. You've already proved with your targeted round ups that enforcement works. I don't think it will even take thirty years and at the very least things won't continue to get worse; of course you'll have to give up that small percentage of the hispanic vote that thinks Mexico still owns most of the U.S. but you'll get my vote and a whole lot more from those that think American citizenship is valuable and that our sovereignty is important to safeguard. Oh, but that's right, your not interested in my vote or representing the majority of American citizens and our Republic, are you?

Woof, The President wants transparency and wants the public to know what's really going on and not be fooled by those evil Conservatives, so why hasn't he been talking about this while he's out champaigning on the taxpayers dime?

Finally, a small and fair step in the right direction; employers can and should be held accountable.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona's law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.

By a 5-3 vote, the court said Thursday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

The decision upholding the validity of the 2007 law comes as the state is appealing a ruling that blocked key components of a second, more controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law. Thursday's decision applies only to business licenses and does not signal how the high court might rule if the other law comes before it.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the Arizona's employer sanctions law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Barack Obama's solicitor general

Breyer said the Arizona law upsets a balance in federal law between dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because they may speak with an accent or look like they might be immigrants.

Employers "will hesitate to hire those they fear will turn out to lack the right to work in the United States," he said.

The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now the administration's Homeland Security secretary.

The employer sanctions law has been only infrequently used. It was intended to diminish Arizona's role as the nation's hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. Employers found to have violated the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked.

Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously upheld the law.

"The debate about immigration reform tends to focus on catching illegal immigrants like those in the smugglers' trucks at the U.S. border, by measures like more fencing or more Border Patrol agents. But the most effective way to reduce illegal immigration is to reduce the demand for the labor of illegal immigrants."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/censusandaliens.htm"Why the Census Should Count Illegal Aliens A Matter of MoneyNot counting illegal aliens costs cities and states federal money, resulting in a reduction of services to all residents. The census count is used by Congress in deciding how to distribute more than $400 billion annually to state, local and tribal governments. The formula is simple: the greater the population your state or city reports, the more federal money it might get." [And representation"

The I-9 is, and hopefully soon E-Verify will be manditory for employment in the US.

"those with an accent."

If someome has a foreign accent, or can't speak english, this is what we call a clue that they might not be a US citizen. What harm is there for a LEO from making further inquiry into their legal status?

JDN, The death penalty is applied to people convicted of heinous crimes in certain jurisdictions, it hits blacks disproportionately and it is labeled discriminatory and racist. (Their victims were disproportionately black as well!) Abortions paid for by taxpayers hit black babies disproportionately more than 3 times worse than white babies, and they are not labeled discriminatory by the people who put themselves in charge of those labels. Employee check will hit people of certain ethnicities disproportionately, maybe Hispanic where you are and maybe Somali and Hmong here, but much harder than 4th or 5th generation midwestern Scandinavian Americans for certain. Applying the law evenly doesn't make the charge go away.

Employers are not the enforcement arm of the federal government and don't need more burdens. IMO they should supply and submit to the federal immigration authorities any information that the feds require of them for each applicant or employee. Then the Feds have the responsibility to act on the information, come out and arrest and deport if they were serious about their job. Simply turning away English challenged, medium skinned people with lousy documentation from work to welfare is no solution in my view.

The same rules that are applied to employers to pay someone should apply to all agencies of government and welfare. How is it legal to pay out or take money for doing nothing but illegal to work and earn it? I will need that explained to me.

If someome has a foreign accent, or can't speak english, this is what we call a clue that they might not be a US citizen. What harm is there for a LEO from making further inquiry into their legal status?

I suppose it doesn't IF the LEO applies that theory to everyone; i.e. a Welsh accent (my friend) or a Norwegian accent, or German, or....If you see my point. The problem is that none of my "foreign" friends from Europe get asked, but Latinos do. Why? That is discriminatory.

Also, unlike your wife (my wife is a foreigner too) who doesn't seem to mind being asked about her papers, my wife (now a citizen) finds it offensethat she be asked, and I am not asked, when we are together. I understand her point.